As American as apple pie, guaranteed basic income is a redistributive concept first taking root in Thomas Paine's "citizen's dividend" in 1795.

Classical liberals Hayek and Friedman are also notable supporters of such a redistribution, albeit under the moniker negative income tax (http://www.nytimes.com...), which Friedman developed in 1962.

Progressives (http://www.vice.com...), from Martin Luther King, Jr. to Silicon Valley tech-bros, have presently been looking for ways to ameliorate ineffective welfare programs, as increased automation pushes the workforce in the direction of inactivity and poverty.

But the vanguard strongest in favor of a guaranteed basic income is found among libertarians, e.g. Matt Zwolinski (http://www.libertarianism.org...). Even mainstream conservatives are warming to the idea (http://www.theatlantic.com...). A guaranteed basic income would remove the costly and bloated welfare apparatus as well as its invasive control mechanisms, and instead inject cash directly -- and unconditionally -- to the citizenry.

A light version would be a singular cash injection to the citizenry, "helicopter money" (also an invention of Milton Friedman) which is being considered in the Eurozone to stimulate economic activity. Rather than quantitative easing, this maneuver places cash directly in the hands of citizens, who then spend accordingly. With a guaranteed basic income, this maneuver would be put to use indefinitely.

For once there is an issue uniting progressives, libertarians, and (mainstream) conservatives.So my question is, why not?

I am fascinated by the idea that our civilization is like a thin layer of ice upon a deep ocean of chaos and darkness.
--Werner Herzog

Looking at the argument in the debate you posted, I am not impressed in the least. It's in shambles.

The one arguing in favor is an alt-right crackpot who thinks eminent domain is great (because Trump says so?), promoting guaranteed basic income as an extension of that principle (moron).

The opponent, a self-proclaimed "libertarian" -- frankly, some sort of social conservative/anarcho-capitalist wingnut, likely of the von Mises variety (those who hail Pat Buchanan and reject Milton Friedman as a "socialist") -- professes "Libertarian Morality" (without theoretically qualifying what that is) to "win" the morality argument, and then easily dumps the moronic eminent domain claim.

Somebody should have stepped in to stop that train wreck. There wasn't even a mention of the Manitoba experiment 1974-1979, which was highly successful (http://public.econ.duke.edu...(2).pdf).

I am fascinated by the idea that our civilization is like a thin layer of ice upon a deep ocean of chaos and darkness.
--Werner Herzog

Looking at the argument in the debate you posted, I am not impressed in the least. It's in shambles.

The one arguing in favor is an alt-right crackpot who thinks eminent domain is great (because Trump says so?), promoting guaranteed basic income as an extension of that principle (moron).

The opponent, a self-proclaimed "libertarian" -- frankly, some sort of social conservative/anarcho-capitalist wingnut, likely of the von Mises variety (those who hail Pat Buchanan and reject Milton Friedman as a "socialist") -- professes "Libertarian Morality" (without theoretically qualifying what that is) to "win" the morality argument, and then easily dumps the moronic eminent domain claim.

Somebody should have stepped in to stop that train wreck. There wasn't even a mention of the Manitoba experiment 1974-1979, which was highly successful (http://public.econ.duke.edu...(2).pdf).

I was only providing some reading, not trying to persuade you.

"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW

At 8/23/2016 6:36:42 AM, NHN wrote:As American as apple pie, guaranteed basic income is a redistributive concept first taking root in Thomas Paine's "citizen's dividend" in 1795.

Classical liberals Hayek and Friedman are also notable supporters of such a redistribution, albeit under the moniker negative income tax (http://www.nytimes.com...), which Friedman developed in 1962.

Progressives (http://www.vice.com...), from Martin Luther King, Jr. to Silicon Valley tech-bros, have presently been looking for ways to ameliorate ineffective welfare programs, as increased automation pushes the workforce in the direction of inactivity and poverty.

But the vanguard strongest in favor of a guaranteed basic income is found among libertarians, e.g. Matt Zwolinski (http://www.libertarianism.org...). Even mainstream conservatives are warming to the idea (http://www.theatlantic.com...). A guaranteed basic income would remove the costly and bloated welfare apparatus as well as its invasive control mechanisms, and instead inject cash directly -- and unconditionally -- to the citizenry.

A light version would be a singular cash injection to the citizenry, "helicopter money" (also an invention of Milton Friedman) which is being considered in the Eurozone to stimulate economic activity. Rather than quantitative easing, this maneuver places cash directly in the hands of citizens, who then spend accordingly. With a guaranteed basic income, this maneuver would be put to use indefinitely.

For once there is an issue uniting progressives, libertarians, and (mainstream) conservatives.So my question is, why not?

Why not just print out enough money so everyone can be wealthy, no matter what they actually provide in return in real goods and services for society? Same answer really.The money required to pay for this basic income would be coming out of everyone's paycheck, raising the price of everything equal to the loss of real productivity or real goods and services throughout the whole economy.

At 9/2/2016 4:17:18 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:Why not just print out enough money so everyone can be wealthy, no matter what they actually provide in return in real goods and services for society? Same answer really.

What happens is that you flood the money supply and spark inflation (which is an invisible tax), which distorts the economy and as a result devalues wages, commodities, and the currency itself.

But in the face of severe, prolonged deflation, Friedman suggested a policy of "helicopter" money: print and redistribute to the many so as to sustain consumption. And the policy must be halted once inflation is in place.

However, that isn't "making everyone wealthy." Wealth is an excess of resources. And it is not possible to create or sustain a system in which the many acquire an excess of that which is privately owned and/or administered by the few.

The money required to pay for this basic income would be coming out of everyone's paycheck, raising the price of everything equal to the loss of real productivity or real goods and services throughout the whole economy.

I'd rather prefer removing social programs, pensions, and tax benefits and credits. This would allow for a sizable basic income while also making possible extensive income tax cuts.

I am fascinated by the idea that our civilization is like a thin layer of ice upon a deep ocean of chaos and darkness.
--Werner Herzog